‘US fighting ISIS and its enemies at the same time, which makes no sense’

Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, including as editorial page editor of the Budapest Sun. He also served as special rapporteur for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group while based in Europe, monitoring human rights and elections on the ground in various contentious states, including Albania during the 1996-1998 civil unrest, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, and Slovakia. He was a Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow (1998-2000) and an American Swiss Foundation “Young Leader” (2006). He can be reached on Twitter or at dlmcadams@gmail.com

The US refuses to address the prime sponsors of extremists in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia; instead it destabilized Syria which has been fighting against ISIS and al-Qaeda, Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, told RT.

RT:The US President last week said good
progress had been made in the fight against Islamic State in
Iraq. But even while it's being pushed back in Iraq, it's making
progress in North Africa. What do you make of Obama's
comments?

Daniel McAdams: We have to also understand the
context of his comments. He was having the first state visit from
the Iraqi PM and he felt he needed to put a positive spin on what
was happening. He also wanted to announce that he was giving
another $200 million to Iraq. So that is an important factor. But
if you look at the places like Tikrit, it was cleansed of ISIS
without very much help from the US. It was primarily Iranian
backed militias that did a lot of the heavy lifting there. Of
course the US was furious about it. So the idea that ISIS is
being pushed backed everywhere, that the US will have a victory -
which is what Obama claimed last week - is patently false and
that is precisely because Obama and the US doesn’t have an idea
what ISIS is about, they don’t understand the enemy. ISIS is an
idea, it’s not a country or a place where you to attack. And
that’s why they will defeat them in certain areas in Iraq and
they will pop up in North Africa. They don’t understand what’s
caused ISIS which is interventionism and particularly US
interventionism starting in Iraq. So therefore there is no way
they can logically have a victory against ISIS.

RT:Some in Congress have said the US looks
too often to the military to solve all America's foreign policy
problems. They suggest strengthening diplomatic efforts instead.
Would that really be effective with a terrorist group? What can
be done to prevent this situation from escalating?

DM: The point is that the problem isn’t here.
ISIS poses no threat to the US whatsoever. The countries in the
region should, could and will find a way to solve it, but the US
absolutely refuses to address the prime sponsors of al-Qaeda and
ISIS in the Middle East. And that’s countries like Saudi Arabia,
which has been backing extremists in Syria since 2011. If the US
hadn’t been attempting to destabilize the Syrian government all
these years - which has been fighting against ISIS and al-Qaeda -
then maybe they would not have the strong foothold they have in
the country. You can’t fight ISIS and fight the enemies of ISIS
at the same time. It makes absolutely no sense.

RT:Obama has been criticized for only
talking about what he thinks is a success in Iraq. But it is a
wider picture with ISIS growing across North Africa, isn’t
it?

DM: And that’s once again sounds like a broken
record, that’s once again caused by US intervention. We were told
by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and all the people in the
White House that if we only overthrew Gaddafi in Libya -
democracy would break out. Meanwhile, we are aligning ourselves
with what became ISIS in Benghazi and lo and behold in the chaos
that followed the US intervention in Libya, ISIS and other
extremists groups broke out. The same was true in Iraq. That was
a precedent that was simply ignored because the interventionists
refuse to learn from their mistakes, they continue to repeat them
and sadly no one looks at them as discredited as they should be.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.